POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain DeetsMS Physics, MS EngFormer Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988) Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in AeronauticsAssociate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000 Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology 37 year NASA career

It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

I didn't record the interview. It was mainly a chat just to confirm Dwain's concerns on the information since his post here regarding his entry at the AIAA, and asking permission to publish an article on the topic.

If anyone has any questions, Dwain is a forum member and can reply in this thread. His forum name is dadeets.

Notice he did not refer to your video and he did not make any unsubstantiated claims. He simply called for the organisations that "can" to make comment and clear the air, maybe you could learn from that here at P4T?!

Boeing knows what that airframe can do, Rob Balsamo does not.

Making mileage out of what Deets has said in his well reasoned statement will lead to him pointing out the flaws in your video, so be careful now:) Good luck!

How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?

John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.

So you now agree the aircraft speed is "An aeronautical improbability" as voiced by Dwain above to the AIAA?

John, throughout our presentation and supplemental press release, we have been voicing the same exact concerns Dwain has outlined above. What do you think motivated Dwain to write the above entry to the AIAA?

Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

For almost two years, you have been on a campaign of "nothing to see here folks, move along" regarding 9/11 aircraft speed. You have attempted to prove the speeds were probable and have failed, all the while attacking me personally. You did it again with, "Rob Balsamo does not".

John, it is clear you do not understand the knowledge I possess with respect to what an airframe can do. Dwain and the other experts I have consulted and credited, do.

With that said, it's good to see you came to your senses and you now agree the speeds are "An aeronautical improbability" and you now acknowledge the "Elephant in the room". Will you still be attempting to get people to look the other way with regards to this "Aeronautical improbability"? Are you going to now inform your past guests you now agree the speeds are "aeronautically improbable" as voiced by Dwain and other experts?

QUOTE

Making mileage out of what Deets has said in his well reasoned statement will lead to him pointing out the flaws in your video, so be careful now:) Good luck!

I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed. The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were. We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?

What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.

The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air! Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.

Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob? Stop and think a while. Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!

I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed.

That's not exactly what Deets said. He specifically states "An Aeronautical Improbability" based on speed and aircraft type reported. Not that it is "improbable the aircraft were a 767-200". Do you understand the difference?

With that said, it appears you don't agree with Deets. Thanks for clearing that up.

QUOTE

The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were.

Logical fallacy. Attempting to prove a negative. That is the same thing as you saying, "You have no proof Santa Claus isn't the person I was told he was by my parents". Legge tried the same tactic in his now defunct "What Hit The Pentagon" opinion piece.

A proper way to structure the statement would be, "What proof do you have that the aircraft observed is a standard 767-200, or specifically, N334AA and N612UA?"

So John, where is your proof?

So far, we have "...established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room"..."

You disagree. That's OK John. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you. I'm sure many of the experts consulted and credited are as well.

John, it's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?

QUOTE

We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?

It is proven based on the best data set we have and were able to obtain, Egypt Air 990, which suffered structural failure at 420 KEAS.

QUOTE

What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.

Dwain is getting at both issues. Improbable speed (Hence, "...this wasn't a standard 767-200;"), and Hijacker pilot skill, (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target."). Although the latter you will note the sarcasm in his tone.

QUOTE

The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air!

John, are you able to make one post without attacking me personally?

John, each simulator has it's purpose. A Cockpit simulator is not designed to measure airframe stress. It is designed for training Cockpit Crew with respect to Cockpit procedures. This is discussed in our presentation. Cabin Simulators are designed to train Cabin Crew with respect to Cabin Procedure. Wind tunels are utilized to measure aircraft stress. Furthermore, the crash logic was clearly disabled on your alleged test, whether inadvertantly or intentional, as pointed out by Capt Ralph Kolstad who has thousands of hours in 757/767 Cockpit Simulators and the actual aircraft at American Airlines.

John, why didn't you get a plotted print out from your supposed sim test? All Level D Simulators have the capability to record and plot the flight. Just like a FDR, but even more thorough as it will give you an actual plot.

It would be nice to have some tangible evidence that your sim test actually took place. Regardless, we already know it isn't a very valid test.

QUOTE

Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.

We have shown you data and precedent. You choose to ignore it. Your campaign has been about attempting to police the "Truth Movement" and dictate to others what they should and should not research. This is all based on a conflict with me personally stemming from the fact I wouildn't boot John Lear from our organization when you made such demands.

John, why do you continue to ignore these questions?

How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?

John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.

QUOTE

Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob?

If you view the presentation thoroughly, you will know.

QUOTE

Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!

Have they viewed our presentation?

John, I agree the 767 is a very powerful airplane. But do you understand why Boeing sets limitations, even on powerful aircraft?

Give them the presentation, then let me know what they "think". Let me know if they will put their name to their claims. Hearsay doesn't mean much on the web John.

Again John,

You think we should ignore the speeds. You think they are "probable". I'm ok with that. I'm ok to agree to disagree on this issue. Can you do the same? Or will you still go around claiming we are promoting disinfo? (Granted I haven't read or listened to much of your work, but I'm sure Craig can dig it out if needed).

Personally, I think It's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?

I remember the question of speed was the very question which led me to P4T some years ago. If you don't know something, go ask the professionals. I remember I was then asking Rob about the possibility of such a speed and he swiftly directed me to the P4T forum.

Later I was always insisting this question should be answered. I derived with dMole some groundspeed estimations from the 84Rades data, which was way above the Vne speed for B767-222, although now we know we really can't be sure the 84Rades data are authentic.

Nevertheles even later I asked achimspok if he could make another of his famous 3D simulations, and he did from the quite many available videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/achimspok#p/u/16/ClDtwOR-3wQ and further videos), which precised the "UA-175" speed estimation, suggesting airspeed maybe even a bit above 600 mph in the final phase (which almost at the sea level where the air is much more dense than at the cruising altitude is quite unheard of and even in the flight tests of civil B767 such a speed reportedly even closely never was achieved at such a low altitude and some credited professionals think it is utterly impossible because the engines would break and/or flutter would shatter the plane into pieces, and pump_it_out was calling in Boeing asking the question about speed and the technician there laughed, when asked if such a speed is possible...) and also rendering very interesting final maneuvre pattern which strongly suggests a computer was steering the plane into the building against the counterwind, hiting the south tower on all three axes exactly perpendicular to the southface ...and on the other hand the 3D simulation rendered the "no-plane theories" into realm of high improbability, because it btw. confirmed the airpaths of the plane on the many diferent videos fit each other in the simulated 3D space and so quite disprooved some of the key claims from "September Clues".So I don't much understand, why especially in connection with the question of speed somebody tryies to play this "no-plane card" again...

So now here we are on this speed question again. Even somebody from NASA acknowledges a proboscidian in the room. Niiice.

I was also forced to delete this post immediatelly after it was written, and write it again, because the post appeared without me at all writing it authomatically rendered the word "pump_it_out" writen together as "pumpshitout", even i the text in editor wasn't anything like that. Why ????!!! (screenshot: http://xmarinx.sweb.cz//pump.jpg )

Where does the figure of 360 knots max operating speed come from? The max cruise speed of a 767 (according to Wikipedia -- "it must be true!") is 493 knots. I guess that's at normal cruising altitude. Is it 360 because of the altitude? Where can this be looked up?

Thanks for the help -- I'm arguing with a very skeptical pilot friend of mine, I need your help with intellectual ammo!

The naysayers continue to argue "tautologically". But they fail to apply the same standards to their own thinking. That discredits them and saves the discriminating reader time and effort, because, as we all know -- and as any good reader should; "words can be found to support any cause", therefore, if a writer continues to ignore and fails to even bother to explain, why his own discourse should be absolved of being subjected to the very same disciplines he is subjecting other materials too, then their writings are a complete waste of time.

Case in point is: (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.").

Which is an assertion, but it excludes explanation as to how this is achieved, without the necessary pilot skill sets! So that it should read: (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target, [ by a pilot who had not the required skills.]").

I'm no expert, but I have to assume that when sensitive operations are taken into "the red zone", everything about the operations then becomes highly critical as well. Such that if there are only a variable or two, acting over an instant or two, an unskilled operator could get lucky. But as the number of variables climb, in addition to the amount of time that the operator has to stay within various limits, the chance of "getting lucky" decreases very rapidly to the vanishing point.

So, what I'm taking away from these discussions is that, it is unlikely in the extreme, that while in the "red zone"[510 knots], all the necessary variables being held tightly within acceptable limits, by a pilot of less than top level experience, is so close to impossible it need not be rationally considered.

It seems to me that the less of these variables one considers at any given point in time, the chances of achieving the desired outcome becomes more and more possible. But, as the other requirements are factored in, one by one, the chances of achieving a desirable result decreases substantially.

So, out of curiosity I have to ask you, can you enumerate the list of variables, which in this case -- during the last, say 5 minutes of the flights, -- have to be held within tight limits, to achieve these results? Please add pilot skill sets and discernable time lengths to the list as well as "break points" that show when they each have to be changed, if any. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, just something off-the-top-of-your head will do. To let us lay people see some of the complexities that are being concealed by these shorthand statements like "beyond it's flight envelope", "was controlable"etc. This will give us some idea of things that a real pilot would have had to deal with in that cockpit.

I haven't touched on this much. But I have been watching John Bursill's behavior and it is very subversive. We have made the same effort with him and others to work together, but he seems to still want to slip attacks on us into his little Visibility shows while interviewing 9/11 Truth Movement figures. This even after Craig beat him to a pulp in his recorded phone interview which he conceded Craig won.

How long can John carry on this charade? Is it that you can't admit you are wrong, John? Because Rob has a point, you have gone from "nothing to see here, moving right along" to now agreeing that the speeds are improbable, to now shifting the blame and onus to Boeing.

I am not sure why you don't want to work with either organization and why you and a your clique are so determined to consistently attack us, undermine us, and misdirect from us? I really don't want to start thinking you are some kind of friendly Australian Intelligence op. I am sure many do not want to start thinking that, but it is beginning to become pretty apparent that you are bent on subversion.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt.

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like. Normal loading requirements for airframes is 1.6 x max load, so there is plenty of excess strength available.

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground).